Adopting rules for the One Hundred Thirteenth Congress.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I appreciate Chairman Frelinghuysen's able and collegial leadership throughout this process and efforts to assemble a bill in an inclusive manner in our subcommittee. I also want to say what a pleasure it was to work with him, and I wish all subcommittees could work as effectively.

I want to thank Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey for their efforts to restore a semblance of regular order to this House in consideration of our appropriations bills, and I want to thank all members of our subcommittee for their thoughtful deliberation in considering the best interests of our Nation as they relate to energy and water development and, importantly, America's nuclear security.

I appreciate the dedication, hard work, and sound judgment of our committee staff on both sides of the aisle. On the majority committee staff side: Rob Blair, Ben Hammond, Loraine Heckenberg, Angie Giancarlo, Perry Yates, and Adam Borrelli. And on the minority committee staff side: Taunja Berquam; from the Chairman's personal office, Katie Hazlett and Nancy Fox; and finally my staff, Ryan Steyer, Nathan Facey, and Steve Fought.

While Chairman Frelinghuysen's worthy efforts are to be commended in the highest way, the allocation imposed on our subcommittee by the Republican leaders of this House, and its Budget Committee, move America backwards in a global economy where our Nation's future is at stake.

The Budget Committee's directive to us reminds me of a seafaring expression: ``If you don't know which way your ship is headed, you're bound to run aground or die at sea.''

This bill runs America aground. It says to future generations, we'll risk your lives floating lost at sea. It's simply inadequate to meet the needs of our Nation.

America's budget deficit spiked because high unemployment, resulting from Wall Street's abandon and over a decade of war, caused high unemployment that reduced Federal revenues.

This bill will not embrace the future, nor create the necessary jobs to reverse that trend and lift up America's working families. Our focus has to be on the future, on creating jobs and opportunity, with every single measure that comes before this House.

Foreign energy dependence is our Nation's chief strategic vulnerability. This bill abandons America's quest for energy independence, which has the potential to create millions of new jobs.

For every American life lost in pursuit of our Nation's national security, now dependent on energy imports, I dedicate my work on this bill today. And I also dedicate my work on the floor in memory of Judge Francis ``Buddy'' Restivo, a World War II veteran who passed this weekend, and just a phenomenal citizen of our country.

This bill not only guts funding for alternative energy research and development, it officially heralds the Republican majority's embrace of sequestration.

Sequestration is the most vivid symbol of congressional negligence. With that one dreadful bill, the Republican majority manages not only to turn its back on energy independence, but also to surrender its congressional responsibility to manage the budget of our country responsibly. The majority has waved the white flag.

This year, in the Lake Erie region, we are celebrating the heroics of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry, hero of the pivotal battle of Lake Erie in the War of 1812. Oliver Hazard Perry's motto was ``Don't give up the ship.''

The majority's motto is ``We just give up.'' We give up trying to perform our constitutional responsibilities with respect to fiscal affairs. We give up trying to create the much-needed jobs that will restore our fiscal footing. We give up trying to help America break free of its dependence on imported petroleum. We just give up. Let the mindless sequester be the status quo.

It's no mystery why Congress' approval ratings have hit an all-time low. This policy is running our economic ship of state aground when we need full sail ahead.

The allocation for the energy and water bill is $30.4 billion, which is $4.1 billion below the administration's request and $2.8 billion below last year's level. There are further allocation cuts beyond even sequestration levels, resulting in deep and severe reductions made to important priorities within the bill.

The chairman worked to include resources for many Federal priorities, including the Corps of Engineers, the Advanced Manufacturing Office, nuclear safety and cleanup, and the bill also prioritizes some of the nuclear security programs.

But funding these programs came at the expense of others so vital to future energy systems for our Nation, including renewable energy, cut by nearly 60 percent, and advanced energy research at ARPA-E, which received an 81 percent reduction.

Shortchanging critical energy and infrastructure investments will slow economic growth and job creation, hindering America's competitiveness.

Let us look at the water accounts. We must continue to invest in America. The scope of damage caused by natural disasters like Hurricane Sandy have laid bare the inadequacies of our water infrastructure.

The Corps of Engineers budget currently has a backlog of authorized projects in excess of $60 billion from coast to coast. But this bill continues a steady decline in water resources infrastructure, reducing the construction account by $304 million from 2013.

Communities across our country will continue to erode as they experience, firsthand, this decreased investment. The risks illustrated by the failure of flood control projects that the American people endured in the wake of Katrina are not gone. Communities across our country are in desperate need of investment, but this bill shortcuts that.

Take St. Louis, Missouri, or Sacramento, California, where a levee break could leave residents with as little as 20 minutes to flee before the water gets 1 foot deep, are just two examples of major metropolitan areas where the Corps must work harder and faster toward more comprehensive protection.

What sense does cleaning up after natural disasters make when preventive measures could prevent destruction and loss of life?

We should be doing more to build infrastructure and create jobs, not less. Investments now will yield future benefits that will far outweigh repayment costs. That is what the Hoover Dam was all about. That is what our Mississippi River lock and dam system is all about. That is what electrifying our Nation, rural and urban, was all about, great visions for a great Nation, not Lilliputian surrender.

On future energy systems, this bill would slash funding for applied energy research and development by more than half, even as foreign competition doubles down to develop 21st century technology while undermining our markets through illegal dumping and intellectual property theft.

Renewable energy is a vital leg of future energy independence beyond the fossil fuel age. It will achieve cost competitiveness, but the question is, which countries will develop and own those technologies?

The United States has spent $2.3 trillion importing foreign petroleum since 2003, representing thousands and thousands of dollars out of the pockets of every hardworking American family. These are dollars diverted not to much-needed American job creation but overseas, assisting our competitors in developing their economies and their energy futures. We are ceding millions of jobs and trillions in income from this country to undemocratic kingdoms far from home.

Wake up, America. Wake up, Congress.

In 2012, every billion dollars of U.S. exports supported nearly 5,000 jobs here at home. But can you imagine what $2.3 trillion in our energy trade deficit translates into lost jobs in America over the last 10 years?

It's a hemorrhage. Our Republic will not compete in this 21st century and beyond if we further reduce investments in this area and cede our energy future to other countries.

Predatory foreign competition in energy poses a real security threat to our country. I view it as the chief security threat to our country. I appreciate the chairman's commitment to ensure that technology developed with taxpayer dollars benefits our Nation first.

The Department of Energy, however, must do more to ensure that intellectual property supported by Federal dollars furthers the interests of the United States economy. And I'm concerned with the level of funding, but I appreciate the chairman's commitment to American manufacturing in this bill.

Manufacturing remains one of the most important job drivers in our economy, and there is little merit in using Federal dollars to foster technological advances or breakthroughs for products that are not ultimately made in America and manufactured domestically.

America must do more to reverse the trend of domestic firms shifting production overseas because, to put it simply, domestic manufacturing drives domestic innovation and jobs here in America.

Tragically, the science account critical to the competitiveness of our Nation is reduced by 5 percent from 2012. And, with an 81 percent reduction, 81 percent reduction in the new ARPA-E program, this bill would effectively end the most advanced research our Nation can launch. That is not a formula for success.

We are beginning to see the initial payment from the ARPA-E, which advances high-potential, high-impact energy technology so advanced it is too early for private sector investment. Return on investment from our publicly-funded research and development ranges from 20 to 67 percent. It's a home run.

With this rate of return, Congress should be increasing our investment in science. This bill moves us exactly in the opposite direction.

Finally, I remain concerned this bill increases spending for nuclear weapons upgrades at the expense of nuclear nonproliferation and cleanup. I support the funding to maintain our nuclear arsenal at acceptable levels, and I appreciate the efforts to improve program and project management, including the reporting requirement on Life Extension Programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration.

However, nonproliferation programs are on the front lines of our defense. They are the most cost-effective way to achieve the urgent goal of securing and reducing the amount of vulnerable bomb-grade material. But this bill cuts these critical efforts by $559 million.

What sense does that make?

Further, I am concerned that the funding the bill includes for environmental management activities is insufficient to meet the Federal Government's legal obligations to clean up its defense nuclear waste.

In sum, this bill should achieve critical investments in our country. It fails to do so. It should promote job creation. It fails to do so. It should ensure national energy security and national security. It fails to do so. It should protect and promote vital infrastructure. It fails to do so. And it should advance American competitiveness, and it fails to do so.

Unfortunately, Republicans on the Budget Committee continue to push the outrageous notion that we can balance our budget through cuts to non-defense discretionary spending, which accounts for only 17 percent of Federal spending. In so doing, they harm America's future in a very major way.

Again, I commend the chairman's effort, however the allocation for this bill is insufficient and irresponsible and I cannot, in good conscience, support it.

It is my firm hope that the committee will be provided a workable path toward the fiscal 2014 appropriation bills, and I look forward to the day we will return allocations to acceptable levels and to working with the chairman to draft a bill worthy of support.

Let me, before reserving the balance of my time, read that quote right up there above the Speaker's rostrum.

Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its

powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great

interests, and see whether we also, in our day and

generation, may not perform something worthy to be

remembered.

That is our charge in this bill, and this bill fails.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey), our very able ranking member of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California, Representative Bera.

I yield the gentleman an additional 1 minute.

Madam Chair, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California, Representative Janice Hahn.

Madam Chair, we have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

In looking at our bill and looking at some of the accounts, especially for the energy and water accounts and the general provisions, there was an excellent article in this week's International Herald Tribune. It talks about sound investments. I will read portions of it very briefly here. It talks about how the rate of economic growth in Germany is surpassing our own just now, and the unemployment rate as a result has dropped to 5.3 percent, and falling further--much lower than in the United States. It investigates why that is the case. It talks quite a bit here about the German economy having made investments whose future benefits will far outweigh repayment costs. This bill and its accounts, essentially, should be doing that; but, unfortunately, it cuts back on some of the most significant job growth.

The article goes on to say that the U.S. economy is still in doldrums. And that's because many of the needed workers and machines are now idle. If the country waits, it will need to bid them away from other tasks. Also, because of the sluggish economy, the materials required for the work are now relatively inexpensive. So this is really the time to encourage investment in our economy to lift the entire system.

The article goes on to talk about the fact that in Germany there had been certain austerity backers, they call them, and it says:

Now austerity backers urge--preposterously--that

infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets

are in balance. But would they also tell an indebted family

to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all of its

debts? Not only would the repair grow more costly with the

delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim.

Families should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that

actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term.

I found this article particularly instructive as we move amendments to the floor and move this bill forward.

In the article it says:

Austerity advocates object that more deficit spending now

will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. That might be

true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage

more lavish parties with borrowed money.

But, in fact, the dollars were being invested in the nation in projects that were creating opportunity and infrastructure that would advance the worth of the nation in decades hence.

So I think that we ought to think about this as we proceed title by title in this bill and ask ourselves the question why it is that many of the important accounts, such as the Corps of Engineers--and several of our speakers today have referenced those--has been cut by $104 million compared to this year's enacted level and falls far short of the investments that we need in one of the fundamentals in the country, and that is in water systems.

Madam Chair, I will place this article in the Record from the International Herald Tribune.

I also want to point out and place in the Record some of the severe cutbacks in this bill with more specificity:

The Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability, and Efficiency account is $971 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $1.96 billion less than the President's request;

The Department of Energy Office of Science is $223 million less than 2013's enacted level and $499.8 million less than the President's request;

The Advanced Research Projects Agency is $215 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $329 million less than the President's request;

The funding for environmental cleanup is $243 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $133 million less than the President's request;

The Nuclear Nonproliferation account is $334 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $40 million less than the President's request;

In terms of the Army Corps of Engineers, it is $104 million less than the 2013 enacted level;

In the water resources projects within the Department of the Interior, there is a $104 million reduction less than the 2013 enacted level and $85 million less than the President's request.

So when we think about the cumulative impact of it, it is just extraordinary. And I will place this data in the Record as well.

I yield back the balance of my time.

[From the Global Edition of the New York Times, July 6-7, 2013]

When Debt Is a Sound Investment

(By Robert H. Frank)

I recently spent a week in Berlin, where the entire city

seemed under construction. In every direction, cranes and

other heavy equipment dominated the landscape. Although many

projects are in the private sector, innumerable others--

including bridge and highway repairs, new subway stations,

and other infrastructure work are financed by taxpayers.

But wait. Hasn't Germany been one of the most outspoken

advocates of fiscal austerity after the financial crisis?

Yes, and that's not a contradiction. Fiscally responsible

businesses routinely borrow to invest, and, until recently,

so did most governments.

Lately, however, fears about growing government debt have

caused wholesale cuts in U.S. public investment. The Germans,

of course, yield to no one in their distaste for

indebtedness. But they also understand the distinction

between consumption and investment. By borrowing, they have

made investments whose future benefits will far outweigh

repayment costs. There's nothing foolhardy about that.

The German experience suggests how Americans might move

past the stalled debate about economic stimulus policy. In

the aftermath of the financial crisis, the policy discussion

began with economists in broad agreement that unemployment

remained high because total spending was too low. Keynesian

stimulus proponents argued that temporary tax cuts and

additional government spending would bolster hiring.

Austerity advocates countered that additional government

spending would merely displace private spending and that

Americans already had too much debt in any event. And the

debate has languished there.

A preponderance of evidence suggests that Keynes was right.

But as the German experience illustrates, progress is

possible without settling that question. The Germans are

investing in infrastructure, not to provide short-term

economic stimulus, but because those investments promise high

returns. Yet their undeniable side effect has been to bolster

employment substantially in the short run.

Not all German public investments have met expectations.

Berlin's new consolidated airport, for example, has

experienced several delays and cost overruns, and parts of

the city's recently constructed central rail station will be

closed this autumn for major repairs. But private investment

projects undergo occasional setbacks, too, and no one argues

that businesses should stop investing on that account.

The Germans didn't become bogged down in a debate over

stimulus policy, and they didn't explicitly portray their

infrastructure push as stimulus. But that didn't hamper their

strategy's remarkable effectiveness at putting people to

work. The unemployment rate in Germany, at 5.3 percent and

falling, is now substantially lower than that in the United

States, where it ticked up to 7.6 percent in May and held

there in June. (By contrast, in March 2007, before the

financial crisis, the rate in Germany was 9.2 percent, about

five percentage points higher than what it had been in the

United States.)

A prudent investment is one whose future returns exceed its

costs--includIng interest costs, if the money is borrowed.

Opportunities meeting that standard abound in the

infrastructure domain. According to the American Society of

Civil Engineers, the United States has a backlog of about

$3.6 trillion in overdue infrastructure maintenance. No one

in Congress seriously proposes that the country just abandon

crumbling roads and bridges, and everyone agrees that the

repair cost will grow sharply the longer we wait.

The case for accelerated infrastructure investment becomes

more compelling with the U.S. economy still in the doldrums.

That is because many of the needed workers and machines are

now idle. If the country waits, it will need to bid them away

from other tasks. Also because of the sluggish economy, the

materials required for the work are now relatively

inexpensive. If the country waits, they will cost more. And

long-term interest rates for the money to pay for the work

continue to hover near record lows. They, too, will be higher

if the country waits.

Austerity advocates object that more deficit spending now

will burden grandchildren with crushing debt. That might be

true if the proposal were to build bigger houses and stage

more lavish parties with borrowed money--as Americans, in

fact, were doing in the first half of the past decade. But

the objection makes no sense when applied to long-overdue

infrastructure repairs. A failure to undertake that spending

will gratuitously burden the country's grandchildren.

In 2009, austerity proponents in the United States argued

against stimulus, predicting that the economy would recover

quickly and spontaneously. It didn't. Later, they said the

country tried stimulus and it didn't work. But in the face of

a projected $2 trillion shortfall in the spending needed for

full employment, Congress enacted a stimulus bill totaling

only $787 billion, spread over three years. And much of that

injection was offset by cuts in state and local government

spending.

Now austerity backers urge--preposterously--that

infrastructure repairs be postponed until government budgets

are in balance. But would they also tell an indebted family

to postpone fixing a leaky roof until it paid off all its

debts? Not only would the repair grow more costly with the

delay, but the water damage would mount in the interim.

Families should pay off debts, yes, but not in ways that

actually increase their indebtedness in the longer term.

Austerity advocates, who have been wrong at virtually every

turn, are unlikely to change their minds about stimulus

policy. But with continued slow growth in the outlook, it's

time to re-frame the debate. The best available option, by

far, is to rebuild tattered infrastructure at fire-sale

prices. If the austerity crowd disagrees, it should explain

why in plain English.

Highlights of 2014 Energy & Water Appropriations Act

2014 mark: $30.426 billion.

2014 budget request: $34.483 billion.

2013 enacted (including Sandy reconstruction): $36.744

billion.

2013 enacted (excluding Sandy reconstruction): $33.240

billion.

The 2014 Energy & Water Appropriations Act would provide:

$982.6 million for Renewable Energy, Energy Reliability,

and Efficiency (not including a $157 million rescission to

2013 funding), which is $971 million less than the 2013

enacted level and $1.96 billion less than the President's

request for the same activities.

$4.653 billion for the Department of Energy Office of

Science, which is $223 million less than the 2013 enacted

level and $499.8 million less than the President's request.

$50 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency--

Energy (ARPA--E), which is $215 million less than the 2013

enacted level and $329 million less than the President's

request.

$5.5 billion for environmental cleanup activities, which is

$243 million less than the 2013 enacted level and $133

million less than the President's request.

$7.675 billion for Weapons Activities (not including a $142

million rescission), which is $97.7 million more than the

2013 enacted level and $193.4 million less than the

President's request.

$2.1 billion for Nuclear Nonproliferation (not including a

$20 million rescission), which is $334 million less than the

2013 enacted level and $40 million less than the

President's request. The House bill also includes $245

million in activities previously appropriated within the

weapons account, as requested by the Administration.

$1.109 billion for Naval Reactors, which is $29 million

more than the 2013 enacted level and $137.1 million less than

the President's request.

$4.876 billion for the Army Corps of Engineers (not

including a $200 million rescission), which is $104 million

less than the 2013 enacted level and $50 million more than

the President's request.

$965 million for water resources projects within the

Department of Interior, which is $104 million less than the

2013 enacted level and $85 million less than the President's

request.

Sequestration Impact on Energy & Water Accounts

This bill fails to address the sequester, ensuring it will

harm our ability to meet energy and water needs next year, on

top of the following impacts that are already taking hold.

Forgone hiring by Department of Energy of 300 full-time

employees; reduced contractor labor by estimated 1,200

employee-years through furloughs, layoffs, and hiring

deferrals; furlough of approximately 60 employee-years

affecting approximately 3,600 contractor employees; and

layoff or voluntary separation of more than 300 contractor

employees.

Severe cuts to renewable energy and efficiency research,

including $16 million from advanced vehicle technologies, $14

million from solar energy, $10 million from biofuels, $5

million from wind, $3 million from hydropower, $3 million

from weatherization assistance, and $5 million from

electrical grid modernization.

Cuts to Office of Science delaying or cancelling laboratory

construction, maintenance, and upgrades; and reducing math,

computing, physics, atmospheric, and cytogenics research at

labs and universities around the country.

Cuts to Environmental Management resulting in furloughs,

terminated activity and forgone work at Hanford Site (WA),

Idaho National Laboratory, Oak Ridge Reservation (TN),

Savannah River Site (GA), and Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

(NM).

Will the gentleman yield?

I wonder, for those that don't come from your part of the country, Congressman Garamendi, talk about what it's like to face that possibility of nonrepair of the facilities that you are discussing.

Madam Chair, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Garamendi).

Mr. Speaker, this morning, for only the second time in the history of the House of Representatives, we will read aloud the full text of the Constitution of the United States.

We hope this reading will inspire many more Americans to read the Constitution. We also hope that this reading will help demonstrate to the American people that the House of Representatives is dedicated to the Constitution and the system it establishes for limited government and the protection of individual liberty.

The text we are reading today reflects the changes to the document made by the 27 amendments to it. Those portions superseded by amendment will not be read.

In order to ensure fairness to all those interested in participating, we have asked Members to line up to be recognized on a first-come, first-served basis. I will recognize Members based on this guidance. Each Member will approach the podium and read the passage laid out for him or her.

In order to ensure relative parity and fairness, I may recognize Members out of order to ensure bipartisanship and balance. Additionally, because of his long-term leadership on civil rights issues, I will recognize Congressman John Lewis of Georgia out of order to read the Thirteenth Amendment.

I thank the Members of both parties in advance for their participation in this historic event, and I will begin this historic reading by reading the preamble to the Constitution:

``We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

It is now my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Enyart).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Walberg).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. La Malfa).

Mr. La MALFA. ``No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

``The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct.''

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Barber).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. DeSantis).

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia, the majority leader, Mr. Cantor.

I now yield to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Walz).

I now yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Franks).

I now yield to the minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Duncan).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lowenthal).

I now yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Collins).

I now yield to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

I now yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn).

I now yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Maffei).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Valadao).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Washington (Ms. DelBene).

I now yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Tsongas).

I now yield to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

I now yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Nugent).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bera)

I now yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Griffith).

I now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

I now yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Huizenga).

I now yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Takano).

I now yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).

I now yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Danny K. Davis).

I now yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer).

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Veasey).

I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tipton).

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. O'Rourke).

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Gosar).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Huffman).

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers).

I yield to the minority leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Flores).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Swalwell).

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gibbs).

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hultgren).

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Austin Scott).

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Holding).

I yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Yoder).

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Barr).

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Meadows).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. Esty).

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Hurt).

I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Perry).

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Pittenger).

It's my pleasure to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis).

I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Womack).

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Connolly).

I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Ross).

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Denham).

It's now my pleasure to yield to the majority whip, the gentleman from California (Mr. McCarthy).

I yield to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford).

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Fleischmann).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros- Lehtinen).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Indiana (Mrs. Brooks).

I yield to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

I am pleased to yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Huelskamp).

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Delaney).

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rodney Davis).

That concludes the reading of the United States Constitution.

I want to thank the gentlemen who arrived and were available, but we ran out of Constitution before we ran out of readers.

I want to thank the Speaker and all the Members who participated in this important reading.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on consideration of H.R. 2609, and that I might include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is my honor to bring the fiscal year 2014 Energy and Water Development bill before the membership of the House.

However, before I go through its highlights, I would like to thank my ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, for her partnership on this bill and hard work and friendship. It's been a real honor to work with you, and I look forward to working with you to get through the entire process. I would also like to thank all the members of our committee on both sides of the aisle for putting this bill so quickly together and so responsibly.

I would also like to recognize the hard work of Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Lowey to bring this bill, and several others before it, to the floor under an open rule.

The bill for fiscal year 2014 totals $30.4 billion, $2.9 billion below last year's levels and more than $4 billion below the President's request.

The budget allocation we received this year made for some very difficult decisions, but in our bipartisan tradition, we worked hard to incorporate priorities and perspectives from both sides of the aisle.

Mr. Chairman, we placed the greatest priority on national defense, our nuclear deterrent, also the critical work of the Army Corps of Engineers and other activities on which the Federal Government must take the lead. The reductions we had to make to the applied energy research and development programs will shift more of their work to the private sector.

The bill provides $7.6 billion, an increase of $98 million above the fiscal year 2013 amount, to modernize the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and its supporting infrastructure, excluding rescissions.

I would also like to note that the recommendation contains no funding to

implement the President's recently announced plans in Berlin to reduce the nuclear stockpile. No funding for such purposes will be available until Congress has judged that these plans will fully support our national defense.

The recommendations increase the Corps of Engineers by $50 million above the President's request and redirects funds to ensure our waterways and harbors keep America open for business and economically competitive. These waterways and harbors handled foreign commerce valued at more than $1.7 trillion last year alone. As in previous fiscal years, the bill maintains the constitutional role of Congress in the appropriations process by ensuring that all worthy Corps of Engineers projects have a chance to compete for funding.

Basic science programs total $4.7 billion, just above last year's post-sequestration levels.

Environmental cleanup programs to address the legacy of the Manhattan Project and other contaminated sites are funded at $5.5 billion, approximately $185 million above the post-sequester levels for fiscal year 2013.

In order to find room for the bill's core priorities, applied energy research and development had to be cut. The recommendation prioritizes funding in this area for programs which truly support American manufacturing jobs, stable energy prices, and diversity of energy supplies.

Our bill includes $450 million for fossil energy technologies and $650 million for nuclear energy activities. Both of these programs are cut below the fiscal year 2013 post-sequester level.

The bill combines the electricity delivery program and the energy efficiency and renewable energy program, and provides $983 million for these activities, excluding rescissions. The recommendation orients these programs to focus on electricity infrastructure resilience--to include cybersecurity--and gasoline prices.

Finally, on Yucca Mountain, our recommendation includes $25 million to sustain the program, along with similar language as last year's prohibiting activities which keep that facility from being usable in the future. It also includes support for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get that Yucca license application finally finished. No funding is included for requested activities to move past the Yucca Mountain repository program. If and when Congress authorizes changes to the program of record, the committee will consider funding for alternatives.

Mr. Chairman, this bill recognizes our fiscal realities and makes the tough decisions to ensure we get our spending under control without sacrificing our most critical of Federal functions. I'm expecting a vigorous and open debate during an open process over the coming days so all can have a chance to contribute to this legislation.

Before I reserve the balance of my time, I want to thank those who helped bring this bill on the floor. On the majority side: our clerk, Rob Blair; Angie Giancarlo; Ben Hammond; Loraine Heckenberg; Perry Yates; Adam Borrelli. On the minority side: Taunja Berquam. From our personal offices, Ms. Kaptur's: Nathan Facey, her deputy chief of staff; and Ryan Steyer. From my staff: Nancy Fox, my chief of staff; and Katie Hazlett.

All of these individuals and others behind the scenes make this process work, one that we can be proud of, and I think we have a bill that, indeed, we can be proud of.

I reserve the balance of my time.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.002

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH09JY13.004

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, may I ask if the ranking member, Ms. Kaptur, is prepared to close.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman from Michigan is correct: the Department of Energy would have the flexibility to transfer funds, as needed, to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission either from funds appropriated in our bill or from funds previously appropriated for this purpose that remain unspent. This language would also allow the Department of Energy to reprogram funds and subsequently transfer them to the NRC for this purpose, if necessary, to ensure that no one could claim that access to adequate funds is a barrier to completing the review of the Yucca Mountain license application.

I thank the gentleman for his comments. I would also like to recognize his leadership on this issue as the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He has worked hard with his colleagues to ensure that the will of the people is heard. The administration must apply the law that Congress already enacted and get this job done.

We look forward to working with the gentleman to get this appropriation enacted and to get this license wrapped up at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, I would just like to raise an issue here with the amount of money in this bill that we are appropriating for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers construction account. I have heard several of my colleagues here speak earlier on individual projects in their districts that affect their constituencies, and I am totally in agreement with that on both sides of the aisle.

But I do want to acknowledge the priority that should be recognized in this bill, and that is recognizing the impacts of these large coastal storms. I happen to represent the port of Boston and the community south of Boston along the south shore; a beautiful area that has a great number of towns with great history there. While they were not affected to the degree that New York and New Jersey were during Hurricane Sandy--Superstorm Sandy--a lot of their infrastructure was damaged

to the point of near collapse. So there is a great need for seawall reconstruction. They withstood that impact. They did the job that they were intended to do at the time that they were constructed. But I feel that this bill in its current form continues to undermine the ability of the Army Corps of Engineers to keep pace with the needed maintenance and reconstruction of our infrastructure.

I just want to call to mind the whole initiative here and what our priorities should be. We are, in many cases across the country, the beneficiaries of people who came before us and made the necessary investments in infrastructure. They saw the need, and we today, and up to today, have enjoyed a competitive advantage against some of our international neighbors because our infrastructure is there.

There is a definite increase in the number of these catastrophic storms. It seems like in my area we have 100-year storms every 3 or 4 years now. There is definitely something going on with climate change and the intensity of these storms.

It seems appropriate that we try to recognize the need here. I notice we are putting an awful lot of money into fossil fuel research and not nearly enough money to recognize the impact that climate change has already had on a lot of our coastal areas. We should be reinvesting in that infrastructure so that we are not faced with the total collapse that we saw in New York and New Jersey with Superstorm Sandy.

I just would call on my colleagues across the aisle in a request for bipartisanship and for recognizing the long-term interests of Americans across the country, Democrats and Republicans, and making sure that we use a commonsense approach in this bill. I think that we are off course with respect to the defunding of the construction account for the Army Corps of Engineers, not just for my district--I'm not saying that just for the communities that I represent who do have considerable need because of recent storms--I'm talking about all across the country. I'm talking about Republican districts as well as Democratic districts.

We have a wonderful organization here in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. They do fantastic jobs. We get more than our money's worth. We put $1 into the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and we get $5 back or $7 back, depending on the project. I think it is just wise stewardship to make sure they have the resources necessary to perform the reconstruction in some cases and maintenance in other cases of the seawalls along the east and west coast to make sure that we are indeed prepared for these storms that are inevitably coming.

I have an amendment later on at the appropriate time in this bill where I will be asking for additional money for the construction account of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

The rapidity with which this process is moving, we might be dealing with the Transportation rather than the Energy and Water appropriations; therefore, my amendment apparently passed without an opportunity to present it.

We just heard our colleague from Oregon speak to the issue of flooding. I represent 200 miles of the Sacramento River, yet this bill ignores the need for this Congress to protect human life. This bill spends $7.67 billion on nuclear weapons and cuts the money for levee protection.

Human life is at risk in my district, and yet this bill ignores the reality of flooding. When a flood occurs in my district, it's not in the summertime; it is not warm water. It is very, very cold water and thousands of lives are at risk. Yet the majority cannot seem to find the money necessary to protect human life, but plenty of money for nuclear weapons. Is this the priority, $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons and not enough money to protect the lives of the citizens of this Nation from real danger, real floods? It's really going to happen, gentlemen and ladies of the majority.

The Corps of Engineers' budget is decimated, and for the last 3 years we have not been able to get one new project even though human life is at risk. Is that the priority? Apparently, human life is not.

Projects in my district: the Hamilton project for the last 3 years has been in the President's budget, yet no New START prohibitions place us in a dangerous situation in my district. Apparently, we need more nuclear weapons but not more levees. Is that the majority's position? $7.6 billion for nuclear weapons, and not enough for a $15 million project to protect the citizens of Hamilton City. You should be ashamed that that's your priority.

This particular appropriation bill is an abomination. It is a disgrace. It is a representation of the wrong priorities. But yet that's what you want to do. I suppose if this had not been a railroad and you weren't moving things so fast, I would have had an amendment opportunity to simply say that New START vital to the life and well- being of citizens in this Nation should be in this bill, but I didn't have a chance to do that because of the railroad you're operating here.

Run it as you will, but at the end of the day there will be human life at stake, at risk, and, quite likely--quite likely--floods in the 200 miles of the Sacramento River and its tributary that I represent.

This is wrongheaded. This is wrong. Your priorities could not be worse. You should be ashamed that this is the priority you put. Levees will not be built. Human life will be at risk. But, presumably, that's what you want.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio.

I would be happy to address my comments through the Chair.

Madam Chair, the priorities that are in this bill are dead wrong. Natomas in Sacramento, 20-foot potential water in the wintertime, with the water temperature somewhere in the 40 to 50 degree range, perhaps human life can last 10 minutes--maybe--but that's the priority.

Hamilton City, the same situation. Yuba City, Marysville, the same situation. A winter storm in California and a levee break is deadly. This is not New Orleans, where you can stay in the water for a few hours. This is cold water temperature. And yet, Madam Chair, the majority's position is to build more nuclear weapons and not to build levees.

When the flood occurs, and it will, what will happen? Could we not take $100 million out of the nuclear weapons account and put it into the levees account in the Army Corps of Engineers? Apparently not.

I yield back the balance of my time.